The ongoing political deadlock in the Brussels-Capital Region is less about language tensions and more about ideological conflict, according to a new opinion piece by Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) researcher Cian De Greve published in Knack.
In his analysis, De Greve argues that fears of a prolonged caretaker government following failed coalition talks are being framed incorrectly. While linguistic divisions are often blamed, he says the real obstacle lies in deepening ideological polarization between left- and right-leaning parties.
The Brussels governance model, designed decades ago to ease linguistic conflict, requires separate majorities among Dutch-speaking and Francophone parties to form a joint government. For over 30 years, this system enabled cooperation between the two communities. But today, it has become a focal point of political blame.
After a failed attempt by Yvan Verougstraete to form a government, leaders from the PS and Ecolo accused Dutch-speaking parties of blocking progress. However, De Greve notes that the PS itself complicated negotiations by vetoing the inclusion of the N-VA in Dutch-speaking coalition talks — a move rejected by parties such as Open VLD and CD&V.
The researcher highlights Brussels’ unique political structure, where representatives serve smaller constituencies than in other Belgian regions, giving local politicians greater autonomy. This independence has historically allowed cross-party cooperation, even among ideologically diverse groups.
Brussels politics also operates at the intersection of regional and municipal governance, often blurring responsibilities. Initiatives like the “Good Move” mobility plan illustrate how local policies can quickly become politically charged, despite being framed as practical solutions.
De Greve places the current impasse in a broader historical context. When the Brussels-Capital Region was founded in 1989, politics across the West leaned toward consensus-driven governance. Coalition governments often included ideologically diverse parties, reflecting the era’s belief in a “third way” beyond traditional left-right divisions.
That consensus has eroded. Economic constraints and global instability have intensified ideological divides, making compromise increasingly difficult. According to De Greve, tighter budgets have reduced political flexibility, turning coalition-building into a high-stakes ideological battle.
The opinion piece concludes that Brussels is mirroring a wider trend seen across Western democracies, where polarization is reshaping governance. Issues once treated as technical or neutral are now deeply politicized, leaving little room for compromise.
De Greve warns that the resurgence of ideological conflict risks reigniting linguistic tensions as collateral damage. In an era already marked by political turbulence, he argues, reopening old community divisions would only deepen the crisis.
He urges political leaders to avoid escalating structural disputes and instead focus on rebuilding consensus — a necessity, he suggests, for navigating Brussels through an increasingly polarized political landscape.
source:Vrije Universiteit Brussels.
About the Author
